V-2nd C4 Allografts

[Michael Bailey]

 Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> allografts
>
> "The more accurate word would be 'xenograft.'  An allograft is a graft
> from a donor of the same species of the recipient, which in fact is
> what Schoenmaker offers."
>
> --Grant, p. 63
>

this is one of those confusing cases, because allo- does mean "other"
- the distinction is between sameness (living people) and
differentness (inanimate objects)

although Pynchon seems to have been too elliptical or something to
explicitly set up the contrast using "homo" for the other term...

here is a definition from MedicineNet.com:
Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to
another of the same species with a different genotype. A transplant
from one person to another, but not an identical twin, is an
allograft. Allografts account for many human transplants, including
those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors.
Called also an allogeneic graft or a homograft.

so in this case, we are using "allo-" to mean different in the sense
of "not an identical twin"

but even in this definition they make mention of a synonym: homograft.

if allo- and homo- are appended to "graft" to mean the same thing...
(Sort of like "flammable" and "inflammable" eg)
- you're stymied if you're trying to denote a distinction between
those two (like) terms!

I suggest that language fails us, rather than Pynchon having failed to
look up the word.  (which seems unlikely)

- there is no seemly, one-word way to make the distinction he's aiming at!

 the suggested "xeno" has more of an implication of "coming from a
strange, foreign (but still human) culture"

Biografting and Abiografting?

Pynchon's use of "allo" puts me most in mind of "allopathy and
homeopathy" of course,
homeopathy being based on the principle of similars,
allopathy, especially in its early days, being only a collection of
"other" methods...